FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2235846810> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2235846810 abstract "How does liberalization of trade and investment (i.e., economic globalization) as well as membership in international organizations (i.e., political globalization) affect the natural environment? Does economic and/or political globalization lead to ecological improvement or deterioration? This article reviews the existing literature on international political economy (IPE) and the environment in view of these and related questions. While globalization has various dimensions—economic, social, and political—IPE focuses mainly on the economic dimension when analyzing the effect of globalization on the environment. In particular, IPE puts most emphasis on the environmental implications of trade in goods and services as well as foreign direct investment (FDI). Even though both trade and investment are thought to have a substantial impact on the natural environment, the existing literature demonstrates that the effects of economic globalization on the environment are neither theoretically nor empirically one-dimensional. This means that existing research does not allow for a clear-cut overall assessment in terms of whether globalization leads to an improvement or deterioration of the environment. This is the case because the impact of economic globalization on the environment materializes via different mechanisms, some of which are supposedly good for the environment, and some of which are bad. On the one hand, economic globalization may improve environmental quality via its positive effect on economic growth, since trade and FDI facilitate specialization among countries according to their comparative advantage and the transfer of resources across countries. On the other hand, relevant economic theory gives little reason to believe that free trade and FDI will influence all countries in the same way. Instead, when considering the relationship between economic globalization and the environment, it is important to consider the interactions between scale, composition, and technique effects created by different national characteristics and trade and investment opportunities. In particular, the <italic>scale effect</italic> of openness to trade and capital mobility increases environmental degradation through more intensive production. The <italic>technique effect</italic> predicts a positive effect of trade and FDI on the environment through the use of cleaner techniques of production. And the change in the sectoral composition of a country as a consequence of trade and FDI, the <italic>composition effect</italic>, could positively or negatively affect the environment of a country (e.g., a change from agriculture to industry may lead to higher energy consumption and air pollution while a change from industry or agriculture to service is expected to decrease environmental degradation). Consequently, the overall effect of trade and FDI on environmental quality can be positive, negative, or nonexistent strongly depending on the specific situation of the country under investigation. Furthermore, both theory and empirical research highlight the potential for government policy and environmental regulations to affect the relationship between trade/FDI and the environment. On the one hand, increased competition between economic actors (usually companies) due to increased market openness (globalization) might cause a <italic>race to the bottom</italic> or at least <italic>regulatory chill</italic> in formal and informal environmental standards as well as <italic>pollution havens</italic> attracting foreign direct investment. The reason is that countries might weaken (or at least not increase) their environmental policies in order to protect industries from international competition or attract foreign firms and FDI motivated by the expectation of lower costs of environmental protection. Hence the (theoretical) expectation here is that developed countries will refrain from adopting more stringent environmental regulations and might even reduce existing standards due to competition with countries that have laxer environmental regulation. And less-developed countries will adopt lax environmental standards to attract FDI flowing into pollution-intensive sectors and export the respective goods to jurisdictions with higher environmental standards. In contrast, the <italic>Porter hypothesis</italic> states that a tightening of environmental regulations may stimulate technological innovation and thus help improve economic competitiveness. In addition, trade openness may induce an international ratcheting up of environmental standards (trading up) as higher environmental standards of richer and greener countries spread—via trade and investment relationships—to countries starting out with lower environmental standards. Furthermore, multinational corporations engaging in FDI and applying universal environmental standards throughout their operations tend to transfer greener technology and management practices to host countries, thus promoting the upgrade of local environmental standards and improving the environmental quality in those countries (the so-called <italic>pollution halo</italic> effect). Echoing the many theoretical pathways through which globalization can affect the natural environment, empirical studies estimating the impact of trade and FDI on environmental standards and environmental quality deliver quite heterogeneous results. In particular, the literature points to various factors mediating the effect of trade and FDI on the environment, such as differences in technology between industrial and developing countries, stringency of environmental regulations, property rights and political institutions, corruption levels as well as the pollution intensity of multinationals. More recently, IPE scholars have started to study the political dimensions of globalization and how they are related to environmental protection efforts. Memberships in international organizations are at the center of this research and recent studies analyze, for example, how they may affect the quality of the environment. Other studies focus more on specific organizations, such as the World Trade Organization, and, for instance, evaluate whether in trade disputes over environmental standards economic or environmental concerns prevail. Finally, a new strand of the IPE and environment literature deals with the micro level and studies how citizens evaluate economic openness in light of potential environmental concerns." @default.
• W2235846810 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2235846810 creator A5063033132 @default.
• W2235846810 creator A5068753876 @default.
• W2235846810 creator A5078343908 @default.
• W2235846810 date "2017-03-29" @default.
• W2235846810 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W2235846810 title "International Political Economy and the Environment" @default.
• W2235846810 doi "https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.172" @default.
• W2235846810 hasPublicationYear "2017" @default.
• W2235846810 type Work @default.
• W2235846810 sameAs 2235846810 @default.
• W2235846810 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W2235846810 countsByYear W22358468102022 @default.
• W2235846810 crossrefType "reference-entry" @default.
• W2235846810 hasAuthorship W2235846810A5063033132 @default.
• W2235846810 hasAuthorship W2235846810A5068753876 @default.
• W2235846810 hasAuthorship W2235846810A5078343908 @default.
• W2235846810 hasConcept C139719470 @default.
• W2235846810 hasConcept C155202549 @default.
• W2235846810 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W2235846810 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2235846810 hasConcept C18547055 @default.
• W2235846810 hasConcept C187452473 @default.
• W2235846810 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2235846810 hasConcept C2119116 @default.
• W2235846810 hasConcept C33842695 @default.
• W2235846810 hasConcept C34447519 @default.
• W2235846810 hasConcept C35532855 @default.
• W2235846810 hasConcept C58823610 @default.
• W2235846810 hasConcept C63504599 @default.
• W2235846810 hasConcept C74363100 @default.
• W2235846810 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W2235846810 hasConceptScore W2235846810C139719470 @default.
• W2235846810 hasConceptScore W2235846810C155202549 @default.
• W2235846810 hasConceptScore W2235846810C162324750 @default.
• W2235846810 hasConceptScore W2235846810C17744445 @default.
• W2235846810 hasConceptScore W2235846810C18547055 @default.
• W2235846810 hasConceptScore W2235846810C187452473 @default.
• W2235846810 hasConceptScore W2235846810C199539241 @default.
• W2235846810 hasConceptScore W2235846810C2119116 @default.
• W2235846810 hasConceptScore W2235846810C33842695 @default.
• W2235846810 hasConceptScore W2235846810C34447519 @default.
• W2235846810 hasConceptScore W2235846810C35532855 @default.
• W2235846810 hasConceptScore W2235846810C58823610 @default.
• W2235846810 hasConceptScore W2235846810C63504599 @default.
• W2235846810 hasConceptScore W2235846810C74363100 @default.
• W2235846810 hasConceptScore W2235846810C94625758 @default.
• W2235846810 hasLocation W22358468101 @default.
• W2235846810 hasOpenAccess W2235846810 @default.
• W2235846810 hasPrimaryLocation W22358468101 @default.
• W2235846810 hasRelatedWork W1500648918 @default.
• W2235846810 hasRelatedWork W1547727723 @default.
• W2235846810 hasRelatedWork W1563303543 @default.
• W2235846810 hasRelatedWork W2031522334 @default.
• W2235846810 hasRelatedWork W2265889059 @default.
• W2235846810 hasRelatedWork W2272243244 @default.
• W2235846810 hasRelatedWork W2393018231 @default.
• W2235846810 hasRelatedWork W2497717460 @default.
• W2235846810 hasRelatedWork W3088546198 @default.
• W2235846810 hasRelatedWork W3122734697 @default.
• W2235846810 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2235846810 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2235846810 magId "2235846810" @default.
• W2235846810 workType "reference-entry" @default.